NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam5591OpenHelen A. Rychlewski MGA Research Corporation 900 Mandoline Street Madison Heights, MI 48071; Helen A. Rychlewski MGA Research Corporation 900 Mandoline Street Madison Heights MI 48071; "Dear Ms. Rychlewski: This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, t the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test. In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not), (2) the standard does not specify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met under all test conditions. The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged. The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHTSA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engagethe inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the basis for your certification. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3557OpenJoseph R. Karner, Project Engineer, M.A.N. Truck & Bus Corporation, 3000 Town Center, Southfield, MI 48075; Joseph R. Karner Project Engineer M.A.N. Truck & Bus Corporation 3000 Town Center Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Karner: This responds to your October 1, 1981, letter asking whether it woul be permissible to attach a label to a door stating 'To Open Door in Emergency Pull Down'. You indicate that the door is not an emergency door in compliance with Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. You question whether the addition of the label in conformance to a contract with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) would make the door an emergency door that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA requires that door to be so labelled because it desires the door to be used as a means of escape.; The standard states that buses shall be equipped with a minimum numbe of emergency exits and that all emergency exits shall be labelled properly and comply with the requirements of the standard. One purpose of the standard is to provide sufficient emergency exits. Another purpose is to provide uniform emergency exit markings and operating instructions. You have stated that your vehicle has the requisite number of emergency exits, properly marked, so that the door in question is not required in counting the total number of exits for purposes of complying with the standard.; As you know, not all doors are required to be emergency exits. Fo example, the front entrance door of a vehicle need not be an emergency exit. If it is not labelled an emergency exit, it need not comply with the requirements of the standard relative to emergency exits. Similarly, the door to which you refer need not comply with the emergency exit requirements if it is not labelled as an emergency exit. However, since your proposed label refers to the emergency nature of the door, it appears to place the door within the category of an emergency exit that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA intends the door to be used as an emergency exit and the label will indicate to riders that the door is suitable for such purposes. You may not, therefore, refer to the door as an emergency door unless the door complies with all of the requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2825OpenMr. Warren L. VanderLinden, Sales Manager, Minnesota Motor Company, P.O. Box 505, Fergus Falls, MN 56537; Mr. Warren L. VanderLinden Sales Manager Minnesota Motor Company P.O. Box 505 Fergus Falls MN 56537; Dear Mr. VanderLinden: Administrator Claybrook has asked me to respond to your recent lette concerning the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van vehicle for the purpose of securing wheelchair patients. Apparently, your legal counsel has advised you that such installation might be prohibited by Federal law or might give rise to private litigation problems in the future.; In answer to your questions, there is nothing under Federal law or th Federal motor vehicle safety standards that would prevent the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van to secure wheelchairs. In fact, Administrator Claybrook and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration encourage you to make the installation requested by the senior citizens home. The safe transportation of disabled persons is currently a serious problem and every effort should be made to ameliorate the situation.; The only instance in which you would have any responsibilities unde Federal law would be an installation of additional safety belts prior to first purchase of the van by a consumer. In that case you would be a vehicle alteror, (sic) and under our certification regulations you would be required to place an additional label on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle is still in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7, copy enclosed). For example, you should not destroy the vehicle's compliance with our Fuel System Integrity standard by penetrating the gas tank with the safety belt anchorage bolts.; Concerning your liability in private litigation, the general provision of negligence law would be applicable, as with any maintenance, repair or alteration done by a motor vehicle repair business. I must defer to the advice of your own counsel on that matter, however.; Once again, the agency does encourage the installation of safety belt for the securement of wheelchairs, since the disabled are seriously endangered without some type of restraint to protect them in a crash. Further, I believe that your fears of liability should be minimal as long as the installation is accomplished with normal consideration and due care.; Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any furthe questions (202-426- 2992).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3999OpenStephen T. Waimey, Esq., Dean Hansell, Esq., Law Offices of Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071; Stephen T. Waimey Esq. Dean Hansell Esq. Law Offices of Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles CA 90071; Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell: Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1985, concerning the automati restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. I regret the delay in our reply.; You asked about the requirement in S4.1.3 of the standard concernin the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated your assumption that the standard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the United States and asked how a manufacturer is to determine if a vehicle is a part of its annual production for the United States. You pointed out that there are a number of possible sales transactions, beginning with the sale of a vehicle by Porsche to the U.S. importer and ending with the first sale to a consumer in the U.S. that can be used in determining at which point a vehicle becomes part of Porsche's annual production for the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your question.; As discussed in the agency's April 12, 1985, (50 FR 14596) notice o Standard No. 208, your assumption that the term 'average annual production' refers only to cars manufactured for sale in the United States is correct. S4.1.3 specifies that percentages of production are to be based on the number of cars *manufactured* between discrete dates. In the case of foreign cars, as in the case of domestic ones, 'manufactured' means produced or assembled. Part 567 *Certification* (49 CFR Part 567) of the agency's regulation requires all vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to have a tag affixed to them certifying that they meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Therefore, in determining which vehicles are to be counted as the manufacturer s average annual production, the manufacturer should determine how many vehicles were produced and certified in accordance with our regulation during the applicable time period. Using production and certification provides the agency and manufacturers with an easily verifiable event to determine which cars are to be counted.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1082OpenMr. Kazushi Sakashita, Assistant Manager, Export Services Division, Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd., 6047 Fuchu-Machi, Aki-Gun, Hiroshima, Japan; Mr. Kazushi Sakashita Assistant Manager Export Services Division Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd. 6047 Fuchu-Machi Aki-Gun Hiroshima Japan; Dear Mr. Sakashita: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1973, in which you ask tw questions regarding your company's practice of maintaining records on replacements parts for vehicles you manufacture. You appear to be under the impression that the retention of such records is necessary for purposes of certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; There are no requirements for the certification of replacement vehicl parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present Standard Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, and it is only with respect to replacement equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Moreover, the NHTSA does not have specific requirements tha manufacturers maintain records as to those equipment items that must be certified. Of course, good manufacturing practice would dictate that manufacturers maintain sufficient records to show that 'due care' was exercised in manufacturing the items to conform to the standards. This is the legal standard applicable to manufacturers under the Safety Act. But it is for each manufacturer to determine for himself the extent to which such records should be maintained.; It is possible that any replacement equipment item, whether or no subject to a standard, may be found to contain a safety-related defect. The discovery of a defect by either the manufacturer of the NHTSA will result in the manufacturer notifying purchasers of whom he has knowledge. (Section 113 of the Safety Act, 15 USC 1402) Here again, good manufacturing practice would require a manufacturer to maintain sufficient records that if a defect is found, the manufacturer will be able to determine the extent of his production in which he will be able thereby to minimize his burden of notification. However, as in the case of certification, the NHTSA does not have requirements for record retention that manufacturers must follow. It is for the manufacturer to determine the extent to which he should maintain records for these purposes.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5094OpenMr. George D. James, Jr. Safety Chairman, Unit 169 WBCCI 1149-1 Dowdle Mt. Road Franklin, NC 28734-9650; Mr. George D. James Jr. Safety Chairman Unit 169 WBCCI 1149-1 Dowdle Mt. Road Franklin NC 28734-9650; "Dear Mr. James: This responds to your letter of October 24, 1992, wit respect to the Tekonsha electronic brake control. You believe that this agency has 'approved' this brake control. Based on your experience towing a travel trailer, you expressed concern about the safety of these particular electronic brake controllers when in service on the public roads, because the stop lamps on the towed vehicle are not activated when the electronic brake control is used to apply the trailer's service brakes. You asked us to review our thinking and 'rewrite the specs on this matter.' Let me begin by emphasizing that this agency has no authority to 'approve,' endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to any items of motor vehicle equipment. All that our letters of interpretation purport to do is to answer questions from manufacturers and other members of the public as to whether the manufacture, sale, and/or installation of equipment is permissible under applicable Federal laws and regulations. Our letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin, Tekonsha's manufacturer, which you quote at one point, was a letter of interpretation, which concluded that 'it now appears that the sale of the Tekonsha Control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.' This letter and conclusion can in no way be read as 'approving,' endorsing, or recommending the use of the Tekonsha system. At this time, we do not have, nor are we aware of, any data indicating that there is a real-world safety problem created by use of the Tekonsha brake control. Hence, we have no reason to change the conclusion announced in the April 3 letter to Echlin about the legality of the Tekonsha control. We would be willing to review this matter again if data become available indicating a potential problem. Thus, if you or any member of your organization learns of any specific safety problems that have arisen for vehicles equipped with the Tekonsha control, please let us know. I appreciate your interest in highway safety. It is only through the concern and support of citizens like yourself that this agency can achieve its goal of minimizing deaths and injuries on this nation's highways. Thank you for taking the time to let us know your thoughts on this matter. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking"; |
|
ID: aiam4518OpenMr. Amnon Shomlo President, A.A.S. 3364 Catamaran Way Jacksonville, FL 32217; Mr. Amnon Shomlo President A.A.S. 3364 Catamaran Way Jacksonville FL 32217; Dear Mr. Shomlo: This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1988 enclosing a 'Peace' decal designed to be affixed to the center highmounted stop lamp. The letters and design are in white, printed on transparent plastic, 'in an effort to preserve the basic requirements for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specified candela.' You have asked what 'Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating that we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product.' There are no regulations that apply directly to the decal, nor any Federal restrictions on its sale. Thus you cannot state in any sales materials that the product meets Federal requirements, for there are none. If a center highmounted brake lamp would continue to meet all applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 after installation of your decal, there are no restrictions on its use. Although you intend the product to preserve the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, it is not certain that this will occur. The decal has the potential of obscuring light from some of the l3 test points at distances where candela photometrics must be measured and the specified minima met. However, its actual effect can be determined only through laboratory tests on lamps of different sizes and lens and reflector designs. Although you have no liability under Federal law for selling this decal, a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act will result if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer before the first sale of the vehicle. A violation will also occur if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied after the vehicle's first sale by any of these persons or by a motor vehicle repair business. There is no violation of Federal law if the decal is applied by a person other than those named above, such as the vehicle owner. In the absence of a violation of Federal law there may nonetheless be State statutes restricting the application of the decal under any circumstances. We are unable to advise you on State laws. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1953OpenMr. J. W. Kennebeck, Manager, Emissions, Safety & Development, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. J. W. Kennebeck Manager Emissions Safety & Development Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This responds to Volkswagen of America's March 25, 1975, petition fo rulemaking to amend S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*, to allow, at the manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Your petition states that it supersedes Volkswagen's February 20, 1975 petition for rulemaking.; Your petition explains that Volkswagen, in offering a passive bel system in its Rabbit model on an optional basis, provides an ignition interlock system and a passenger-side warning system to encourage passive belt usage, although such systems are not required by the standard. You correctly note that a January 16, 1975, letter to Volkswagen from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel indicates that additional safety devices such as these are not prohibited by our minimum safety standards, as long as their installation does not have the effect of causing required systems not to comply.; Your petition requests an amendment of Standard No. 208's warnin provisions to permit a visual warning longer than the 4- to 8-second reminder light presently required by S4.5.3.3. You apparently have concluded that language in our January 16 letter prohibits the provision of any additional visual warning with a duration different than 4-8 seconds.; Our January 16 letter states 'additional [safety] devices could not b installed if that installation has the effect of causing the required systems not to comply.' This does not prevent the installation of a second visual warning which operates continuously when seat belts are not in use at either front designated seating position. The manufacturer who provides such additional warning would only have to ensure that the required 4- to 8-second visual reminder required under S4.5.3.3 operates independently of the additional warning.; For this reason, we conclude that Volkswagen may provide the additiona warning it desires without amendment of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is denied as unnecessary. Please advise the NHTSA if this interpretation does not permit Volkswagen to provide the degree of additional warning for which it petitioned.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2575OpenMr. Melvin R. Stahl, Vice President, Government Relations, Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. Melvin R. Stahl Vice President Government Relations Motorcycle Industry Council Inc. 1001 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Stahl: This is in reply to your letter of April 7, 1977, requestin interpretations with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*.; You have asked whether a speedometer may be marked to register speed i kilometers per hour only. The answer is no. Table 3 of Standard No. 123 requires that motorcycle speedometers indicate speed in miles per hour. You have also asked whether a speedometer may be marked to register speed in both miles and kilometers per hour. The answer is yes. The requirement that speedometers be marked in miles per hour is a minimum requirement only and there is no legal objection to a manufacturer adding kilometer markings to the dial.; "Your next question is whether Standard No. 123 preempts a New Yor State law, passed in 1976, that requires speedometers of all motor vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1980, to measure speeds in both miles and kilometers per hour. The answer is yes, assuming that a j motorcycle is defined as a 'motor vehicle' under New York law. As you know 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) provides that no State shall have authority to establish with respect to a motor vehicle a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicles as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Speedometers marking is clearly the same 'aspect of performance' in both the Federal and New York requirements, and it appears that New York would be preempted from requiring a motorcycle manufacturer to mark its speedometer in kilometers, though the manufacturer would not be prohibited by Standard No. 123 from voluntarily doing so."; Your final question is whether NHTSA contemplates changing Standard No 123 'mandating only or optional km/h speedometer markings.' The answer is yes. I enclose a copy of an NPRM published on December 13, 1976, proposing a new standard on *Speedometers and Odometers*. The proposal specifically allows use of kilometer markings on motorcycle speedometers in addition to the required markings in miles per hour. Note, however, that it would not apply to 'motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 mph or less' (*e.g.*, mopeds) or police motorcycles.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2826OpenMr. Warren L. VanderLinden, Sales Manager, Minnesota Motor Company, P.O. Box 505, Fergus Falls, MN 56537; Mr. Warren L. VanderLinden Sales Manager Minnesota Motor Company P.O. Box 505 Fergus Falls MN 56537; Dear Mr. VanderLinden: Administrator Claybrook has asked me to respond to your recent lette concerning the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van vehicle for the purpose of securing wheelchair patients. Apparently, your legal counsel has advised you that such installation might be prohibited by Federal law or might give rise to private litigation problems in the future.; In answer to your questions, there is nothing under Federal law or th Federal motor vehicle safety standards that would prevent the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van to secure wheelchairs. In fact, Administrator Claybrook and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration encourage you to make the installation requested by the senior citizens home. The safe transportation of disabled persons is currently a serious problem and every effort should be made to ameliorate the situation.; The only instance in which you would have any responsibilities unde Federal law would be an installation of additional safety belts prior to first purchase of the van by a consumer. In that case you would be a vehicle alteror, (sic) and under our certification regulations you would be required to place an additional label on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle is still in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7, copy enclosed). For example, you should not destroy the vehicle's compliance with our Fuel System Integrity standard by penetrating the gas tank with the safety belt anchorage bolts.; Concerning your liability in private litigation, the general provision of negligence law would be applicable, as with any maintenance, repair or alteration done by a motor vehicle repair business. I must defer to the advice of your own counsel on that matter, however.; Once again, the agency does encourage the installation of safety belt for the securement of wheelchairs, since the disabled are seriously endangered without some type of restraint to protect them in a crash. Further, I believe that your fears of liability should be minimal as long as the installation is accomplished with normal consideration and due care.; Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any furthe questions (202-426- 2992).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.